Difference between revisions of "Talk:CF Standard Names - Discussed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Please add your comment! --[[User:ChristianeTextor|ChristianeTextor]] 30 June 2006 (EDT)
 
Please add your comment! --[[User:ChristianeTextor|ChristianeTextor]] 30 June 2006 (EDT)
 +
 +
 +
Dear Christiane,
 +
 +
Thank you for this work! A few minor comments/suggestions/questions :
 +
 +
1) "nitrogen_monooxide" -> "nitrogen monoxide"?
 +
 +
2) there is always the problem that "NOy" has no
 +
fully agreed definition in the literature... It is perhaps
 +
unwise to use it in the name? Could we use
 +
"total_nitrogen_oxides" instead? We have also to
 +
chose :
 +
- if only the species with the name listed go in
 +
the sum
 +
- or if it is up to the modeller to select
 +
all nitrogen oxides in his/her chemical scheme.
 +
 +
3) the description of the "troposphere_content*" variables
 +
is not enough detailed because it is indeed verticaly integrated,
 +
but up to the tropopause only. We can specify in the explanation
 +
"up to the tropopause level", but we probably also have
 +
to specify the tropopause definition to be used (2PVU,380K ?)
 +
as the value is quite sensitive to the specific criterion used
 +
(for species with strong vertical gradients at the
 +
tropopause like ozone). A drawback of specifying is that any
 +
other type of hypotheses (other "tropopause" definition : 150 ppb of
 +
ozone, 100 hPa,...) or other ways of computation (specific
 +
tracer in the model) would then no longer fit with the name.
 +
I don't know the solution...
 +
 +
4) we could add, for ozone at least, "total_atmosphere_content_of_*_in_air"
 +
(in Dobson units for ozone, mol/m2 for others if needed).
 +
 +
5) the variable "mole_fraction_of_ozone_from_stratosphere_in troposphere" is a modeler's concept, with no chance of being
 +
measured. The way it is implemented in a model has an impact
 +
on the actual values, due to non linearities etc... I would
 +
not be in favor of including it as a standard variable.
 +
What do you think?
 +
 +
6) add "mole_fraction_of_lead_in_air". Lead is the radioactive
 +
daughter of Radon, with wet scavenging as principal sink. There
 +
are some observations and it is useful to evaluate models, as decided
 +
in GRG+VAL.
 +
 +
Cheers,
 +
 +
Vincent-Henri
 +
 +
Christiane Textor a écrit :
 +
 +
> Dear all,
 +
>
 +
> as agreed at the workshop in Toulouse, I am preparing the
 +
> CF-standard_names for the variables used in the GEMS GRG simulations.
 +
>
 +
> A 'virtual workgroup' activity focusing on the interoperability of air
 +
> chemistry/aerosol data systems has been established some weeks ago. This
 +
> group has set up a wiki page at
 +
> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Air_Quality/Chemistry_Naming_Conventions
 +
> to discuss the concepts of new names for chemical and aerosol variables.
 +
>
 +
> Go to this page and have a look please!
 +
>
 +
> I have constructed a list of names for GEMS-GRG, please go to
 +
> # Proposed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Names
 +
> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/CF_Standard_Names_-_Proposed_Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Aerosol_Terms
 +
>
 +
> The concepts for the new names can be found when clicking on
 +
> # Construction of Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms and Future
 +
> Standard_Names
 +
> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/CF_Standard_Names_-_Future_Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Aerosol_Terms
 +
>
 +
> I will submit these proposed names in the near future to the CF mailing list for official acceptance. Please have a short look at the names and comment!
 +
>
 +
> (I will send a short documentation on CF next week.)
 +
>
 +
> Best regards,
 +
> Christiane
 +
>
 +
>
 +
>
 +
 +
 +
--
 +
  ._____. ._______________________________________________________.
 +
  | ._. | | .___________________________________________________. |
 +
  | |_| |_|_|___.                                        _____  | |
 +
  |___| |_____. |        Vincent-Henri PEUCH            | ._. | | |
 +
  .___|_|_| |_| |  Meteo-France, CNRM/GMGEC/CARMA  .___| |_|_|_| |
 +
  | ._____| |___|    mailto:peuch@cnrm.meteo.fr    | ._| |_______|
 +
  | | | |_| |            http://www.meteo.fr        | |_|_|_| |___.
 +
  | | |_____|  tel: +561079609  fax : +561079610  |_______| |_. |
 +
  | |___________________________________________________| | | |_| |
 +
  |_______________________________________________________| |_____|
 +
 +
          MESSAGE SANS CARACTERE OFFICIEL / NO OFFICIAL VALUE

Revision as of 04:59, July 3, 2006

Please add your comment! --ChristianeTextor 30 June 2006 (EDT)


Dear Christiane,

Thank you for this work! A few minor comments/suggestions/questions :

1) "nitrogen_monooxide" -> "nitrogen monoxide"?

2) there is always the problem that "NOy" has no fully agreed definition in the literature... It is perhaps unwise to use it in the name? Could we use "total_nitrogen_oxides" instead? We have also to chose : - if only the species with the name listed go in the sum - or if it is up to the modeller to select all nitrogen oxides in his/her chemical scheme.

3) the description of the "troposphere_content*" variables is not enough detailed because it is indeed verticaly integrated, but up to the tropopause only. We can specify in the explanation "up to the tropopause level", but we probably also have to specify the tropopause definition to be used (2PVU,380K ?) as the value is quite sensitive to the specific criterion used (for species with strong vertical gradients at the tropopause like ozone). A drawback of specifying is that any other type of hypotheses (other "tropopause" definition : 150 ppb of ozone, 100 hPa,...) or other ways of computation (specific tracer in the model) would then no longer fit with the name. I don't know the solution...

4) we could add, for ozone at least, "total_atmosphere_content_of_*_in_air" (in Dobson units for ozone, mol/m2 for others if needed).

5) the variable "mole_fraction_of_ozone_from_stratosphere_in troposphere" is a modeler's concept, with no chance of being measured. The way it is implemented in a model has an impact on the actual values, due to non linearities etc... I would not be in favor of including it as a standard variable. What do you think?

6) add "mole_fraction_of_lead_in_air". Lead is the radioactive daughter of Radon, with wet scavenging as principal sink. There are some observations and it is useful to evaluate models, as decided in GRG+VAL.

Cheers,

Vincent-Henri

Christiane Textor a écrit :

> Dear all, > > as agreed at the workshop in Toulouse, I am preparing the > CF-standard_names for the variables used in the GEMS GRG simulations. > > A 'virtual workgroup' activity focusing on the interoperability of air > chemistry/aerosol data systems has been established some weeks ago. This > group has set up a wiki page at > http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Air_Quality/Chemistry_Naming_Conventions > to discuss the concepts of new names for chemical and aerosol variables. > > Go to this page and have a look please! > > I have constructed a list of names for GEMS-GRG, please go to > # Proposed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Names > http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/CF_Standard_Names_-_Proposed_Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Aerosol_Terms > > The concepts for the new names can be found when clicking on > # Construction of Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms and Future > Standard_Names > http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/CF_Standard_Names_-_Future_Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Aerosol_Terms > > I will submit these proposed names in the near future to the CF mailing list for official acceptance. Please have a short look at the names and comment! > > (I will send a short documentation on CF next week.) > > Best regards, > Christiane > > >


--

 ._____. ._______________________________________________________.
 | ._. | | .___________________________________________________. |
 | |_| |_|_|___.                                        _____  | |
 |___| |_____. |        Vincent-Henri PEUCH            | ._. | | |
 .___|_|_| |_| |   Meteo-France, CNRM/GMGEC/CARMA  .___| |_|_|_| |
 | ._____| |___|    mailto:peuch@cnrm.meteo.fr     | ._| |_______|
 | | | |_| |            http://www.meteo.fr        | |_|_|_| |___.
 | | |_____|   tel: +561079609  fax : +561079610   |_______| |_. |
 | |___________________________________________________| | | |_| |
 |_______________________________________________________| |_____|
         MESSAGE SANS CARACTERE OFFICIEL / NO OFFICIAL VALUE